Nancy Pelosi won the tweet of the week yesterday, with this post:
@NancyPelosi: A third judge just ruled the Affordable Care Act constitutional. I eagerly await the breaking news alerts.
Yes, it didn’t get a lot of coverage compared to a couple of earlier decisions, but now a third federal judge has joined two others in ruling the new federal law constitutional–the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel. That’s on top of over a dozen judges that threw various cases out in the first place.
That’s opposed to one judge that struck down one provision (the requirement for individuals to obtain coverage), and one Judge Vinson that wildly overreached in striking down the entire law.
The judge didn’t mince words in rebutting Judge Vinson:
“It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not ‘acting,’ especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.”
As the Atlantic noted, this won’t be ultimately resolved by a “best of five,” but by a “best of nine.”
When the ACA wass being debated, most constitutional scholars thought this wasn’t really an issue, and thought if it ever did get to the Supreme Court, it would be a unanimous ruling for the law’s constitutionality. Many have now considered the politicization and polarization of the courts–and even the Supreme Court. But even now, there’s a general belief that it will be upheld in the end.
Lawrence Tribe in the New York Times has the definitive take on why he thinks the Supreme Court will rule to affirm the federal law’s constitutionality.